The FT is reporting that the executive of the 1922 Committee has written to May, saying that she'd have their backing if she chose to sack feuding ministers.

Theresa May has the support of the majority of the Conservative party if she chooses to sack ministers and enforce discipline on her feuding cabinet, after a weekend of leadership manoeuvres and poisonous leaks.

A message has been sent to the prime minister by the executive of the 1922 committee, which represents the parliamentary party, saying she has its support to stay on and deliver Brexit in March 2019.

“The PM has the strong support of Tory MPs — she can enforce cabinet discipline however she thinks is appropriate,” said one senior Conservative. “We will be cheering her on.”

The thing is, it's not enough to have majority support. She needs to have 85%+1 support, since all you need is 15% of Conservative MPs for a leadership contest to start. So the 1922 can say that all they like, it's basically empty. If anyone she sacks can get 47 other MPs together, that's all you need.

Boris would surely be top of the list, he stood up at the dispatch box last week and contradicted the Government's official policy for goodness sake. But sacking any of them would almost certainly trigger a leadership challenge, regardless of what the 1922 Committee say.

Problem is that if she can't or won't enforce party discipline, the party will find someone who can.

At lower educational levels the public sector pays more (and pretty much always has), but if you have a degree or equivalent education the opposite is true.

This. I've friends in the care sector and a government job was seen as a massive upgrade since it's slightly above minimum wage and offers reasonable holiday/sickness/pension "benefits".

Whereas my entire business sector (regulatory consultancy) would be dead if we didn't have a constant stream of disgruntled gov employees wanting a proper graduate wage rather than one where the student loan repayments don't even cover the interest on those loans.

Orange Lodge claims it is being 'demonised' after offensive party costumes are exposed

THE Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland has hit out against the “demonisation” of “Protestant culture and heritage” after images emerged of members dressed as Hitler and Jewish children.

The pictures were posted on social media accounts held by the Whinhall True Blues Flute Band, which stages fancy dress events at the Airdrie and District Orange Hall and Social Club.

They show a man and woman dressed as Hitler and Eva Braun, with two youngsters wearing ripped clothes and yellow Judenstern – used to mark Jews in Nazi Germany.

Others show a man dressed as the Pope with a noose around his neck, men holding a soft toy clad in a Celtic strip to their crotches and someone in blackface make-up wearing an afro wig with a bone necklace.

The Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland initially declined to comment, but yesterday issued a statement via social media claiming it was the victim of “skewed” coverage.

Calling for a boycott of the Sunday Herald, it said: “We understand that the press has a role to play, but there is a difference between holding to account and pursuing a baseless agenda to attack and demonise our Protestant Culture & Heritage.”

The Truth Defenders, the Crown Defenders, the Protestant Boys, the Protestant Martyrs, the True Blues, the Young Loyalists, the Sisters of Truth, the Crimson Star, the Loyal Daughters – these just some of the band names.

Well-wishers waving Red Hand of Ulster flags lined the streets. One group had a life size cardboard cut-out of the Queen.

Political speeches began at Glasgow Green under “Orangefest” banners but numbers here were fewer than expected, with many empty chairs in front of the stage. Barriers were hastily removed and stewards appealed to people to take empty seats.

The leader of the Labour Party the first to come under fire.

In the so-called “State of the Nation” speech, Depute County Grand Master Brother Stephen Brown warned that “Republican sympathisers like Jeremy Corbyn and his cohorts continue to plot and scheme”.

Brown said seeing Tory MPs unseat Alex Salmond and Angus Robertson “was greeted with delight” in the Orange Order, which brought applause from the crowd.

“What a kicking the SNP got,” he said. “As far as the Orange Order is concerned, it could not have been a better outcome. Nicola’s immediate plans for an independence referendum are all but shot to pieces and the sudden rise in stature of the DUP can only be good for Northern Ireland and, inevitably, for unionism and loyalism.”

He added: “From an Orange perspective, we can benefit from a situation where our Orange voice can be heard in the highest of courts. Sisters and brethren, the future is most definitely Orange.”

Amusingly the OO's press release was word for word the press release used by Rangers fans Club1872 last week. Both written by a guy who lasted an afternoon as Rangers director before his tweet of a drawing of the prophet Muhammad getting 'massaged' by Jar-Jar Binks (kid you not true story) got exposed

I don't know what you think this is. He's just doing a tour of marginal seats, giving the same basic speech and a few hundred people come out to see him and listen to what he says. It's not a conspiracy.

When it comes to the marketing departments of political parties seeking power, it's always a conspiracy until I hear otherwise ;)

Originally Posted by Fernando Fernandez

I was there! Whole square was full up and seemed quite a mix of all sorts there. Good speech but I'm sure he's going to be saying the same speech up and down the country. The turn out in Bournemouth after was strong too and that's full of old dears.

Amusingly the OO's press release was word for word the press release used by Rangers fans Club1872 last week. Both written by a guy who lasted an afternoon as Rangers director before his tweet of a drawing of the prophet Muhammad getting 'massaged' by Jar-Jar Binks (kid you not true story) got exposed

Classy. It's always the same with situations like this, you can tell if an organisation/group/company or hierarchy has genuine concern/embarrassment or responsibility for what goes on within their ranks with how they apologise. If they double down or play the victim that is not a good look at all.

Sectarianism in Scotland is definitely a dark side to our country. We might as well throw some blackface and more into the mix too!

There are real problems getting top staff for public sector jobs, according to a few people I know working in the sector.

The main draw used to be good pensions and incredible job security, but after the last 7 years of cuts...

Yep. There's absolutely no point being a senior manager in the public sector. You get paid less, the majority of your job will be about delivering cuts and defending failing services in the face of cuts, and the risk if some of these things go wrong is huge (social services!).

The third sector and the consultancy sector has become the destination of choice now. Better to get out of public sector entirely if you can.

The thing is, it's not enough to have majority support. She needs to have 85%+1 support, since all you need is 15% of Conservative MPs for a leadership contest to start. So the 1922 can say that all they like, it's basically empty. If anyone she sacks can get 47 other MPs together, that's all you need.

True, but will those 47 other MPs give them that vote if they don't think the person they are backing will have majority support?

You can go and search for say, graphic design, wed development jobs for yourself and compare the offered salaries if you don't believe me.

I'm certainly not venturing into the hell that are government job postings again unless I really need to.

Sure, but government IT jobs are really bad in general. Either they are going to pay better or be less selective usually the later, or people wouldn't bother getting them! On that note though the acquaintance has an assistant admin job in the civil service.

Sure, but government IT jobs are really bad in general. Either they are going to pay better or be less selective usually the later, or people wouldn't bother getting them! On that note though the acquaintance has an assistant admin job in the civil service.

AA roles are the very lowest grade you can have as a civil servant so the pay will be pretty terrible in most departments.

May having the 'support' of the 1922 committee is really them playing for influence, it's nothing to do with May. They presumably want to get the non-Brexiteers (i.e. Hammond) out of the cabinet. He has zero chance of mounting a leadership bid as he is cripplingly uninteresting. But her getting rid of her Chancellor would ultimately just be some other power base excerpting it's authority.

May has her cabinet. She has authority as long as that cabinet does not directly attempt to oppose her. As she has no authority herself, she is in place until she does something that her cabinet can unite and oppose her on. As long as she keeps the sides playing off on each other (as currently) her situation is secure.

Basically if they spend all their time attacking each other, she is safe.

"Good," Philip Hammond was said to have yelled triumphantly in a cabinet meeting. "I hope everyone dies. I hate everyone. I'd kill them all personally if I had the time. Boris, who are you on the phone to? Are you on the phone to The Times? You blonde wanker, is that The Times on the fucking phone?"

True, but will those 47 other MPs give them that vote if they don't think the person they are backing will have majority support?

You don't need majority support. The moment the leadership contest is actually triggered, all the other candidates will declare, and it turns into a proper race. You could secretly favour another candidate and just be pushing a stalking horse.

"Good," Philip Hammond was said to have yelled triumphantly in a cabinet meeting. "I hope everyone dies. I hate everyone. I'd kill them all personally if I had the time. Boris, who are you on the phone to? Are you on the phone to The Times? You blonde wanker, is that The Times on the fucking phone?"

I mentioned the issues around data protection and Brexit a couple of weeks but the Lords report into the subject makes for sobering reading.

The course I was on, ran by someone who previously worked at the EU Commission on Data Protection policy, recommended that UK companies contact the Commission and start getting their ducks in a row for future compliance agreements because he doesn't see the UK government being able to get a UK adequacy agreement. He mentioned that would be due to UK national security issues but I didn't quite pick up on his point at the time, but the Lords report makes clear the issue.

When considering an adequacy decision, the European
Commission will look at a third country’s data protection framework in the
round, including national security legislation. If the UK were to seek an
adequacy decision, the UK would no longer be able to rely on the national
security exemption in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
that is currently engaged when the UK’s data retention and surveillance regime
is tested before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

In short data protection has the prospect to be one the biggest clusterfucks about the whole thing.

Loved this as well

The UK’s future ability to influence EU rules on data protection is in doubt.We conclude that the Government must retain UK influence, starting by
seeking to secure a continuing role for the Information Commissioner’s Office
on the European Data Protection Board. The Government will also need to
replace the institutional platforms currently used to exert influence and find a
way to work in partnership with the EU to influence the development of data
protection standards at both the EU and global level.

the UK would no longer be able to rely on the national
security exemption in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
that is currently engaged when the UK’s data retention and surveillance regime
is tested before the Court of Justice of the European Union.

So basically inside the EU as per that treaty, the UK is able to meet retention criteria despite its approach to the internet. As a third party then it would miss that criteria due to the national security policies?

So basically inside the EU as per that treaty, the UK is able to meet retention criteria despite its approach to the internet. As a third party then it would miss that criteria due to the national security policies?

Pretty much. Absent a data shield type deal (which will be tricky for other reasons), it looks like UK companies will need to go for their own agreements with the commission.

The UK presently has several opt-outs pertaining to immigration and national security specifics. After the UK leaves is a whole different story though, especially with May's new internet regulation that just doesn't fly.

"Good," Philip Hammond was said to have yelled triumphantly in a cabinet meeting. "I hope everyone dies. I hate everyone. I'd kill them all personally if I had the time. Boris, who are you on the phone to? Are you on the phone to The Times? You blonde wanker, is that The Times on the fucking phone?"

Top comments are incredible.

It's amazing. Everyone is an idiot. I'm an idiot. Theresa May is an idiot.

Not one youth jail in England and Wales is now deemed safe after a “staggering rise” in violence over the past year, the prison watchdog has warned.

Easy access to drugs and soaring numbers of inmates locked up for well over the recommended period have also contributed to a “vicious cycle” in which emphasis on rehabilitation has declined, Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, said.

Absolutely disgusting, when will Conservatives learn that under funding and punishment alone will only make things much worse?

On an unrelated note people are starting to suspect the Tories have been paying for retweets on some of their tweets due to a few suspect things. Another thing they won't learn it seems in how to actually reach out to people. I can only imagine what a load of faux organic shit they are going to put out when they start their anti momentum initiative.

Like, if he was arguing for his specific strain of Christianity, that'd be one thing. I'm a Catholic in a Protestant country, I can get that.

But arguing Christianity itself as marginalised, and that people are right to feel marginalised for being Christian because that's part of what he ascribes to be the Christian experience - rather than because they actually are - is silly. People took issue with a specific belief because of the implications of that belief, from the leader of an ostensibly moderate and/or progressive party, not just because he was a Christian trying to abide by beliefs. That's too abstract a perspective.